------art_37183_18426755.1215794961948
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Thank you Philip.
I'm happy with you reply. My dream is to have a full UNIX compliant machine
to start developing C software, like the good Ruby.
CygWin does that miracle for me?
Thank you for your time and att.

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:31 PM, phlip <phlip2005 / gmail.com> wrote:

> Ranieri Teixeira wrote:
>
>  I've downloaded the sources of Ruby 1.8.7-p22 and compiled it with MS CL
>> compiler.
>>
>
> What a pain! Next time, get CygWin, and compile with GNU C.
>
> > Ok, very well. But, the code is in structured C, not in object
>
>> oriented C++. Why? C++ doesn't provides the sabe low level facilities as C
>> and the powerful abstractions, and good practices from the OOP paradigm?
>>
>
> All system-level engines are written in C, not C++. C has been a Standard
> for much longer, and has more compliant compilers. So any engine that wants
> to run on the widest number of platforms must use C. It compiles for
> everything from wristwatches to Mars Rovers.
>
> The point of OOP is rapid code changes. That contradicts the goal of
> super-widespread portability. No matter what your language, you must
> chose one or the other, not both. And Ruby is indeed coded in Object
> Oriented C. The ++ does not magically make every program OO.
>
> C++ would not necessarily make Ruby easier to code; C++ objects can never
> map directly onto Ruby objects.
>
> --
>  Phlip
>
>


-- 
Ranieri Barros Teixeira
UFPA - FACOMP - CBCC
http://multiligado.blogspot.com/

------art_37183_18426755.1215794961948--